Time on trial: narrative time and discourse strategies in criminal courtroom closing statements

Abstract Closing statements constitute a crucial stage of trial advocacy: attorneys retrospectively synthesise evidence and reinforce key arguments through narrative and temporal structuring to guide jury deliberation. Drawing on Ricœur’s theory of narrative time, this article extends discourse-analytic research on legal storytelling by examining how temporal organisation operates at the point of narrative closure in courtroom argumentation. It examines the closing statements from two separate criminal trials: those of Grant and Amanda Hayes, who were charged with the murder of Laura Ackerson in North Carolina (2013–14). Using Ricœur’s dimensions of episodic sequencing (the ordering of events), emplotment (the causal and moral linking of those events), and configuration (their integration into a coherent narrative whole), this study examines how the prosecution and defence reconfigure time during the evaluation of evidence to shape juror perceptions of agency, intent, and culpability. The findings suggest that the prosecution employs a chronological, causally linked narrative to consolidate claims of premeditation and shared responsibility, whereas the defence disrupts this ordering to introduce uncertainty and advance alternative interpretations. By demonstrating how temporal organisation functions as a discourse-pragmatic resource in the closure of legal narratives, this study advances theoretical and methodological understandings of narrative discourse in courtroom settings. It also shows how narrative time can shape legal reasoning at critical decision-making moments, offering broader insight into communicative practices in legal contexts and beyond.